Entirely predictable, from the day Starmer became leader, that this would happen—the claims made by Panorama's (ahem) "whistleblowers" helped the Labour right regain control of the party. Why on Earth would that faction now want to stand its ground against their legal action?
Talk about burying the lede ... Novara has provided a helpful summary of what's in that report, and people can judge for themselves whether it's defamatory to claim that "disaffected former officials" had "worked actively to undermine" Corbyn.
novaramedia.com/2020/05/19/did…
novaramedia.com/2020/05/19/did…
One hint as to how solid this case may have been: John Ware seemingly couldn't defend himself against accusations of misrepresenting the facts, without ... misrepresenting the facts. Chakrabarti never said suspension should be used "only as a last resort", as he claims here.
This is what Chakrabarti actually said: suspension shouldn't be used every time, as a *first* resort—a very different point. Yet John Ware claimed to "know" (not think, *know*) that a Labour official felt constrained by a non-existent recommendation—a curious assertion indeed.
Another lede buried here: this suggests that the EHRC report might not live up to the more inflated expectations ("carefully couched in 'legalese'" seems like a nice euphemism for "alas, they can't just make up any old rubbish the way newspapers can").
A lot more here about Panorama, the EHRC and the whole false narrative put together about "Labour antisemitism" by a range of political actors united by their hostility to Corbynism. Factions come and go, but the facts don't change.
jacobinmag.com/2020/06/keir-s…
jacobinmag.com/2020/06/keir-s…
